A NATION AT WAR: GENEVA CONVENTIONS; Public Opinion Effort Leans on Rules of War

Even as the United States wages its fierce campaign in Iraq, the Bush administration has opened a second front. In a parallel public relations campaign, officials have repeatedly accused Iraq of violating the Geneva Conventions and other international laws that govern the conduct of war.

Among the complaints are that Iraq humiliated prisoners of war by allowing their questioning to be broadcast and that its forces used the white flag of surrender to lure American soldiers into ambushes.

Legal experts said the complaints were grounded in well-established international law. The fact that Iraq was attacked, the experts continued, does not alter its legal obligations.

''Who is right and who is wrong in a war, including who started it, does not matter,'' Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of international law at the Johns Hopkins University, said in a telephone interview from Geneva. ''Even if you think the war is illegal, the rules of war still apply.''

Some lawyers said invoking the Geneva Conventions and other treaties was not entirely consistent with the attitude that Washington has expressed toward international institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court and with how it treated enemy soldiers taken prisoner in Afghanistan.

''What an amazing hypocrisy for the United States now to be castigating Iraq for putting U.S. soldiers on television,'' said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a group in New York that has challenged the wide-ranging detention of of prisoners captured in Afghanistan at the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Mr. Ratner said the United States had violated the ban in the Geneva Convention on humiliating prisoners by ''furnishing pictures of the Guantánamo captives hooded, shackled and kneeling.'' He said that action did not excuse Iraq's releasing tapes of American prisoners.

''But it certainly takes away the pulpit from the United States to sermonize against what other countries are doing,'' he added. ''It really shows you the risks the Bush administration is taking in many areas in ignoring international law.''

The Pentagon has repeatedly castigated Baghdad for violating international treaties on the conduct of war.

''It is a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention to humiliate or abuse prisoners of war or to harm them in any way,'' a spokeswoman for the Pentagon, Victoria Clarke, told reporters on Monday. By contrast, Ms. Clarke said, ''we are treating all p.o.w.'s in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, with dignity and respect, and they will soon have access to the Red Cross.''

The United States holds more than 3,500 Iraqi prisoners of war.

Ms. Clarke cited ''other deadly deceptions'' by Iraq, including using white flags and soldiers dressed as civilians to draw Americans into ambushes, as ''perfidy or treachery.''

''Some liken these actions to terrorism,'' she said. ''Such acts involve the enemy's willfully violating the laws of war while simultaneously taking advantage of the coalition forces' compliance with that law.''

The prohibition against many battlefield ruses, including using the flag of surrender under false pretenses, is called perfidy in the law of war. It has been informally prohibited ever since war had rules, legal experts said. The prohibition has been codified several times.

Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, a nonpartisan group in Washington, said the prohibition was central to the civilized conduct of war because of the importance of allowing troops who wished to surrender to do so safely.

The Geneva Conventions are four related 1949 treaties signed by about 190 nations, including the United States, Iraq and Afghanistan. The third convention, on prisoners of war, is being closely scrutinized this week as images of American prisoners being questioned are broadcast around the world. It sets out detailed rules, prohibiting torture, approving ''sports and games'' and requiring that tobacco be permitted and sold at local market prices.

The provision that has drawn the most attention says, ''Prisoners at all times must be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.''

Geoffrey Robertson, a lawyer in London who is an expert in international human rights law, said Iraq violated that provision.

''It's clear that the parading of prisoners either to obtain a propaganda advantage or to degrade them is a breach of the Geneva Convention,'' Mr. Robertson said.

But, he added, ''It may have the advantage for relatives of assuring them that particular individuals are alive and well and not missing or presumed dead.''

Mr. Fidell said advances in technology and newsgathering had created difficult problems.

''The 'public curiosity' clause is an artifact before modern television, certainly before the Internet, certainly before satellite transmissions,'' he said. ''There is a tension between the 'public curiosity' clause, a clause that dates most recently to 1949, and the kind of unique thirst for information that our society encourages, facilitates and respects.''

''How do you resolve that tension?'' he asked. ''You resolve it in favor of the convention.''

The convention requires that the International Committee of the Red Cross be allowed to visit prisoners of war.

Ultimately, though, it will be up to the Iraqi leadership to decide whether to abide by the convention. Peter J. Spiro, a professor of international law at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., said world opinion was the main way to enforce the treaty.